Talk:Mungaru Male

India: Karnataka / Cinema Low‑importance

	India portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.IndiaWikipedia:WikiProject IndiaTemplate:WikiProject IndiaIndia articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Karnataka (assessed as Mid-importance).
	This article is supported by the Indian cinema workgroup (assessed as Low-importance).

Albums

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Albums, an attempt at building a useful resource on recordings from a variety of genres. If you would like to participate, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.AlbumsWikipedia:WikiProject AlbumsTemplate:WikiProject AlbumsAlbum articles

Film: Indian

	Film portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Film. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the guidelines.FilmWikipedia:WikiProject FilmTemplate:WikiProject Filmfilm articles
	This article is supported by the Indian cinema task force.

Guild of Copy Editors

This article was copy edited by Grumpylawnchair, a member of the Guild of Copy Editors, on 25 June 2023.Guild of Copy EditorsWikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy EditorsTemplate:WikiProject Guild of Copy EditorsGuild of Copy Editors articles

WikiProject class rating[edit]

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as stub, and the rating on other projects was brought up to Stub class. BetacommandBot 19:33, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed gross[edit]

In the last few days there has been a dispute over the film's gross. In this edit IP 103.16.70.82 changes the value to ₹40-50 crore based on this reference, noting that the gross value of 75 crore comes from the director. In this edit from IP 106.76.31.63, the value is changed back to 75 crore, citing this reference. The explanation used is confusing: "We dont consider only director starement"

Firstly, I don't know why this was not taken to the talk page by either user. It should have been. Secondly, primary sources (a film's director, an actor, a producer, a distributor--anyone directly involved) should not be used as a source for controversial data. If independent estimates can be found that support the 75 crore value, then we could present the total in the form of a range, between {{INR}40-75 crore. Care must be employed here, though, because there is a lot of shitty entertainment journalism out there. A source could simply fail to mention that the director is the source of the information, and how would we know. This is why it's important to use reputable sources. I think The Hindu fits the bill for now. Indiaglitz was added as a reference alongside The Hindu in this edit, but it's a poor choice as it is expressly indicated as an unsuitable source at WP:ICTF. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:55, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not surprisingly, IPs keep removing the tag, are apparently confused by the clear explanation in the |reason= parameter, and still haven't noticed that the templates link to this discussion. In these edits, attempts to justify the 75 crore value were supported by substandard references. Filmibeat is not considered a reliable source per WP:ICTF (note "Oneindia"). I'm under no impression that Mybangalore.com is a reliable source. It has all the markings of a faceless blog. Why someone would think MyPoojaGandhi.com is a reliable source, is beyond me. We don't use primary sources for controversial data like box office financials because primary sources like producers, directors, actors, promoters, etc. all have a vested interest in inflating box office values to sell more tickets and to make themselves look good. As noted above, the origin of the 75 crore figure appears to come from the director. What reliable source on the list of approved mainstream sources reports this 75 crore value? This isn't a difficult concept, film fans: we use reliable mainstream sources with established reputations for fact-checking and accuracy. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 07:02, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Justice[edit]

I Requesting, want justice for my edits. Which I had been cited reliable sources in this article, now it is no longer. It's not fair. I never edit till get justice. I think few editors simply judges without proper checking. Thanks for opening my eyes, big thank to Wikipedia. Waste of time and Internet. Thank u all Vikramranrathod (talk) 19:23, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Can't you just make the changes I asked you to, please? NOTNOTABLE (talk) 19:28, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand what your complaint is, Vikramranrathod. Does it occur to you that some of your edits may have been problematic for one reason or another, and that sourcing alone might not be the issue? Cyphoidbomb (talk) 21:37, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Film's gross revisited[edit]

Despite my 2016 diatribe above, a closer look at the DNA reference for the film's gross reveals that the 75 crore figure came from a film critic called Prahlad Rao, not someone related to the production, which was already problematic and likely should have warranted the removal of the high figure. I don't know what expertise a film critic would have in Indian film finances and I can't find Prahlad Rao on Google News other than in the DNA article. There are other hits for the name, but they're for politicians and military figures and stuff like that. There might be a strong argument for removing the 75 crore figure. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:49, 15 December 2019 (UTC) Grumpylawnchair (talk) 16:53, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]